How do you like your RTS games?
<div class="IPBDescription">I have been dissappointed lately.....</div>Hey guys,
Just wondering what you guys think of the current direction strategy games tend to be going in terms of game design.
I, personally, feel kind of puzzled. Why is base building bad and anachronistic all the sudden? Why tech trees bad? I'm thinking specifically of DOW2 and C&C4, games which had strong tradition of building bases, getting upgrades and building strategized armies. Now it feels like all you do is grind out reinforcements and stomp across the map looking for control points. I really hope this doesn't become the new standard for strategy games.
I know most of you are probably thinking, "chill man, SC2 has all the base building you need", and yeah i agree that is a notable exception, but keep in mind that the game is based an old, and very good, concept.
Basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Games like COH managed to have dynamic reinforcement strategies without doing away entirely with bases. To me, THAT is progress... not games like DOW2 and C&C4... both enormous let downs for me.
Thoughts?
Just wondering what you guys think of the current direction strategy games tend to be going in terms of game design.
I, personally, feel kind of puzzled. Why is base building bad and anachronistic all the sudden? Why tech trees bad? I'm thinking specifically of DOW2 and C&C4, games which had strong tradition of building bases, getting upgrades and building strategized armies. Now it feels like all you do is grind out reinforcements and stomp across the map looking for control points. I really hope this doesn't become the new standard for strategy games.
I know most of you are probably thinking, "chill man, SC2 has all the base building you need", and yeah i agree that is a notable exception, but keep in mind that the game is based an old, and very good, concept.
Basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Games like COH managed to have dynamic reinforcement strategies without doing away entirely with bases. To me, THAT is progress... not games like DOW2 and C&C4... both enormous let downs for me.
Thoughts?
Comments
I was unhappy when I heard base building was removed for DoW2, but after playing it I can see why they made the change. It did remove (almost) all strategy from the game, though; now it's just a tactical game.
SC gameplay is the past. Still, SC2 will be a massive hit- not so much becuse of the gameplay but because it'll be finely balanced and every man and his dog with a PC will own the game.
C&C I've never seriously considered an RTS franchise.
If I play a rts, without ability to build good bases and nice tech trees, I will think they are bad rts though. Sure, it might be a good tactic game, but real time<b>strategy</b>? Nope. Maybe this is because I am a turtler, love prolonged games and such, but when I play a rts, I dont want to spend all my focus on micro tasking my forces.
Sure, I know a very good example of a strategy game that doesnt have tech trees and yet is very fun, but that is because instead of tech trees, you build your own units (warmelons in garrys mod (now dead)), so yeah, tech trees and bases is not the only way of making a fun rts, but I really would hate if they stopped having it in every game or such (again, if it aint broken, why fix it?).
I never really got to try DoW multiplayer, but at least the singleplayer felt like a lot less controllable. For example in SP I constantly struggled to maintain awarness of my squad composition and often failed to gather information on how effective I actually was with the composition I had.
On C&C family tree, Red Alert 2 was a nice LAN party game and the SP wasn't bad either. C&C3 on the other hand felt pretty terrible. It was a constant struggle with the unit control and UI and the multiplayer match vids I've seen haven't been very impressive. I guess I should give it some more time to really hook me up though, as it takes some time to adjust to the differences from Blizzard RTSes.
As for Blizzard. Starcraft is still the #1 multiplayer RTS for me. I'm not very good at it, but the detail, the control and the abilities to read and understand the game are all almost overwhelming. I also liked the singleplayer, although it seems rather easy for the most of it nowadays. Brood war did a great job with the unit compositions and such, although I feel the singleplayer lacked the detail level of the original. The biggest problem with SC for me is the lack of proper ladder and matchmaking. Just joining nearly random games and hoping you'll find a suitable opponent is pretty tricky for a new player who wants to quickly learn the basics.
Warcraft 3 on the other hand is strictly multiplayer only experience for me. I've completed the singleplayer campaings, but they were more frustrating than interesting. I felt the singleplayer revolved too much around figuring how the opponent is going to play on each mission and reloading the game until you countered it right rather than actually trying to beat the missions the adaptive way. The multiplayer on the other hand is great fun. I wouldn't call it as thought provoking as SC at it's best, but it's still extremely challenging, pretty creative and everything works like a charm in general.
The biggest problem I had with it were the people playing the game. Without a regular practice partner you'll run into some one-hit-wonder strategies in 40% of the games, which means another 20 minutes of boring gameplay until you get to pick another opponent. The stationary defence was damn effective, so if someone wanted to make the game last for 30 minutes, he had no problem in doing so.
---
As in general, I think it's good that many devs are trying to modernize the RTS genre. However, I'd still like to see the Blizzard tradition surviving in the future. It's a little similar as the FPS division into pure DM and Semi-realistic families. Both should be able to exist without one being completely considered a fossil from the past.
I really dislike "RTS" games that remove the economic, base building, and teching aspects. I find they gut most strategy right out by doing so. Games like this: DoW, World in Conflict, C&C4, and basically any recent RTS. I actually like to call them "RTGs" (Real Time Games, what game isn't?). The best 'modern' game out of all of them is CoH as they did several things right and the worst 'modern' RTS game is DoW:1 as it's so simple and boring. I'm not even counting games like World in Conflict or C&C4 as they're abominations.
So probably company of heroes crossed with the original supreme commander and the settlers.
Thread over.
HOMEWORLD 3: I WANT TO BELIEVE
Well this, or Sacrifice, which doesn't really count.
One of the main reasons people cite for the degradation of the RTS genre overall is it's hard to get new people into it. Let's face it, you will end up playing against people who've honed their RTS abilities for years, learning the nuances of strategy, micro, macro, intuitive knowledge of what counter what, etc. And controlling that many units can be tough. Plus there's always the question of how many dude to use for mining, and all the nuance number tweaking.
Contrast to say an FPS game. You pick your guns and go. It's easier to pick up, your skill set transitions easier (shotgun is a shotgun is not a sniper rifle), and much more intimate. Plus, FPS translates a lot more easily into the console world, and so you've got a large number of people coming in from that market, making the FPS genre more universal for all gamers.
Thus, with C&C4 and DoW2 they removed a hug part of the base building aspect to try and narrow it down even further into the microscopic tactical choices you make. It eases the entry barrier, and gets you into tighter control of your units, giving a more intimate feel of the battles.
Basically, I understand WHY they did all this, but at the same time I've never really jumped at the chance of a DoW2 multiplayer matchup. They've given up a huge amount of depth in the macro game to focus on the micro and make it easier. Really I'm more of a SupComm, SC1 guy (I guess SC2 once I get around to it). Either that or genre blenders like NS. CoH I never figured out the subtle nuances and the heavy requirements of micro always gave me problems. DoW1 was a blast.
So yeah, I really am quite sad the macro game seems to be disappearing. However, maybe SC2 will bring about a resurgence of people realizing how magnificent it is to have in your RTS game.
BLASPHEMER
I prefer strategy, and my favourite rts is as I said earlyer, red alert 2, but there is nothing wrong in tactics.
For example:
I am not sure if people here played warmelons (also previously mentioned), but it is a rts-gamemod to gmod, where you have a spawn point, and shall blow up the enemies spawn point. To do this, you canbuild stuff like normal gmod, but to deal damage you need units (melons). There is several kinds of units, which creates the strategy aspect, what kind of vehicle shall I build (if any), and what units (cannons, snipers, machine guns)?
But it also excells at tactic usage, as you can micro-task your forces alot.
separate your medics from the others, keep stronger units at front, hide in that slight valley (some maps have displacements) during cannons reload time, get the hell out of the valley if enemy got cannons, and get on a hill when your cannon want to fire.
So even if the strategy part is fun, nothing is as fun as to see the enemys 50 k thing get blown to pieces by a few melons by foot (about 5k) just because you used tactics XD.
Pro:
-Good micro, ability to rotate buildings allowing for strategic base layouts. Good micro situations. Pretty graphics. Suicide bombers.
Con:
-HORRIBLE online community.
#2 TA-Spring
Pro:
-Tons of possibilities, mass destruction, pretty graphics
Con:
-Hard to find online matches. Steep learning curve
#3 Starcraft
Pro:
-Good micro, many strategies, lots of online players
Con:
-Never really stuck with me.
Wish I still knew where my zero-hour disks were and had time to play.
Dune and Emperor Battle for Dune, were both enjoyable.
Majesty, was a fun RTS and SIM game but the second one blew.
War Craft, sucked after the first one.
Star Craft, is boring even when trying.
Supreme Commander, blah...
Gotta agree. Real Time Strategy games blow lately...
I'm not qualified to make any judgement on RTS games because I get frustrated with them easily and have no patience for them. I enjoy the single player campaigns though.
I disagree. Let's take SC2 for example. A tactic is to use buildings to block off a natural's choke allowing the player to safely have two bases instead of one and with the blocked off natural the player would destroy the rocks in their main, making that their new choke. There are many other examples but I doubt listing them will change your mind. I have no doubt most players just build whatever with little to no thought into why but base building can be a very important part to how the entire match plays out.
It all boils down to personal preference. Someone people like games like DoW2 and others like games like SC.
<!--quoteo(post=1771398:date=May 16 2010, 06:27 AM:name=DiscoZombie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DiscoZombie @ May 16 2010, 06:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1771398"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think that was his point - that RTS games stopped being good after the old games he listed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yarp.
Partitially it's all the same, partitially it's the smaller details at that point.
For example going mutalisks could be a pick from 3-4 openings, then variating it with some building placement, overlord placement, possible scout timings, balancing out the zergling/drone ratios, deciding between a 2/3 hatch muta (those are very different), choosing the tech timing (speedlings, lair, extractor timing) and all this while scouting your opponent and trying to figure out what's his plan and adapting to it and also denying the opponent his scouting information. It's not the most interesting part of the game in general, but it doesn't need to be any kind of "olol, I'll just go mutalisk" decision either. Of course some people try to do completely preset builds, but they'll get punished for it eventually.
It all boils down to personal preference. Someone people like games like DoW2 and others like games like SC.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Those tactics are pretty much necessary though, right? I mean if you don't block the natural's choke with your buildings, you're just an idiot, right? It's not like you have one build order where you wall yourself off from attacks and a different build order where you let your opponent waltz into your base. It's not "strategy" if your only option is do it or be at a disadvantage.
top-level Counter-Strike is just point and click, any idiot with fast reactions can do it. OH WAIT.
Just because you dont personally like it, doesnt mean you can make sweeping generalisations about something which you very clearly do not know much about. Building placement (example in SC2) can be game-changing in itself. Ever heard of tech hiding? Yeah. I'm trying hard not to flame you here, but that post was ignorant as hell.
<!--quoteo(post=1771429:date=May 16 2010, 11:20 PM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TychoCelchuuu @ May 16 2010, 11:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1771429"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Those tactics are pretty much necessary though, right? I mean if you don't block the natural's choke with your buildings, you're just an idiot, right? It's not like you have one build order where you wall yourself off from attacks and a different build order where you let your opponent waltz into your base. It's not "strategy" if your only option is do it or be at a disadvantage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong. It's not uncommon (even in top-level games) for players (in certain situations) to build their early game buildings near their mineral line, and not at their ramp. Its generally regarded as more of an econ opening; it was seen occasionally in BroodWar TvZ openings, with Terran using his barracks and 2 supply depots to create a partial wall around his SCV line (barracks between CC and gas, depot between CC and minerals, depot closing entry through minerals). It was a partial econ opening which used the building placement to protect the SCV line from early ling harass, as opposed to the more common opening of blocking the top of the ramp. The decreased travel time for the SCV before building means less wasted mining time, due to travelling.
And thats just one variation on a standard build-order, not even getting into stuff like tech hides and FE fakes.
<!--quoteo(post=1771416:date=May 16 2010, 07:32 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ May 16 2010, 07:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1771416"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What's more, it's not about strategy, unless you consider what is effectively one giant mathematical sum 'strategic'.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can reduce Chess to a flowchart. Does that make it any less strategic?
psyche.
Not at all, which is why I disagreed. Generally people say what you just said when they don't have enough knowledge and just make generalizations. It's not common to block off your natural's ramp for any race in SC2. In-case you were unaware, the natural is the first expansion generally close to your main base. Blocking off the natural's choke is a viable build on only a handful of maps, puts the player in a defensive situation, and generally allows the player to tech while defending high cost armies with low cost defenses. It's a new strategy that is 100% attributed to building placement entering into a general strategy.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not like you have one build order where you wall yourself off from attacks and a different build order where you let your opponent waltz into your base.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong again. I play Terran in SC2. Terran will usually block off their main base ramp against Zerg, however, to assume that is what you do in all circumstances is almost as stupid as your quoted line. If my Terran opponent blocks off his ramp he just created a huge liability and extended the size of his base which makes it an easy target for Reaper harassment. If a Terran tries to block off his ramp against a Protoss they may lose their supply depots and fall into the red against an Immortal timing push which could cost them the game.
Building placement matters and should be an important part of an RTS game. I like RTS games that allow for more strategy and more tactics and I've found the RTS's that strip out buildings, teching, workers, etc. are one dimensional. Like I said earlier, though, some players don't want all of the added layers of strategy and complexity which is where DoW or World in Conflict takes over.
This, incidentally, is why I stay away from rts games. There's just no room for me to break into that genre when something as seemingly inconsequential as what a single builder does for a few seconds actually matters. I mean, it takes what, five seconds to move to the choke? And then five seconds to move back? Ten seconds in total (out of the ten-plus minutes a match can take) for one builder out of two dozen, and it matters? There's no way a beginner like me can ever catch up to that level.
The way it used capture points as area-control + resource acquisition made territory-holding matter a lot more then it does in a lot of other games. Also even after playing for many months I only rarely got a sense of ah... boredom? The build orders were fairly up in the air, as far as I knew (and witnessed in ranked games) there were a few REALLY early build choices such as going for lots of engineers to rush-cap some points or set up roadblocks... but aside from that it seemed like there were only 'general strategies' that focused on a particular combination of units or loose build order.
I'll admit though that it was very annoying when for a while there everyone and their mother would just spam rangers. That was especially frustrating because it worked so well against even an entrenched and well balanced army. Think they fixed that though.
My original point was that the game was not as predictable as something like Starcraft, and that was a major point in it's favour.
Alternatively I could suggest you guys play Homeworld 2. I logged on the other day and there were SEVEN people logged into the lobby in the middle of the day! They weren't playing Vanilla HW2 though, they were playing a mod called TFS. Tactical something or other. Apparently there was another guy who was playing some kind of battlestar galactica mod for it too.
HW2 is ... well, it and HW1 were pretty unique games for their time and even still today. Hw2 holds up pretty well in the graphical department and with the mods the strategy can be pretty interesting. I would kill somebody for Homeworld 3 though. I would kill two people actually.